Kodak has announced it will sell its Personalized Imaging and Document Imaging business units, to focus on 'commercial, packaging and functional printing solutions and enterprise services,' ending Kodak's role as a consumer-facing photographic company. The Personalized Imaging business includes print kiosks and consumer film, while the Document Imaging business includes scanners and commercial document management. In the meantime, the company stresses that products and support will be available and both businesses will be sold as going concerns.

Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal has reported that many of the world's biggest technology companies, including Samsung, Apple and Google, have formed a consortium to bid for Kodak's digital imaging patents. Kodak was hoping the sale of its patents would raise over $2.2bn which would help the remains of the company emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The newspaper reports that the consortium is looking to pay as little as $500m for the patents which cover Kodak's many fundamental inventions in the digital field.

Kodak will continue to make film for the movie industry, along with its 'Specialist Film' division, which makes large-format films for aerial and industrial photography. It will also continue to run its Consumer Inkjet division as one of its last public-facing businesses.

Press Release

Kodak Takes Next Steps toward Successful Emergence

ROCHESTER, N.Y.--BUSINESS WIRE--Eastman Kodak Company today outlined its next steps toward a successful emergence from Chapter 11 reorganization as a company primarily focused on commercial, packaging and functional printing solutions and enterprise services. Accordingly, the company has initiated sale processes for its market-leading Personalized Imaging and Document Imaging businesses.

“In addition, we continue our initiatives to reduce our cost structure and streamline our operating models in an effort to return the company to profitability.”

Kodak believes that the sale of these assets, as well as continued cost-reduction initiatives, curtailment of its legacy liabilities, and the monetization of the company’s digital imaging patent portfolio, will be significant milestones toward completing the company’s reorganization and emergence from Chapter 11 during 2013.

“The initiation of a process to sell the Personalized Imaging and Document Imaging businesses is an important step in our company’s reorganization to focus our business on the commercial markets and enable Kodak to accelerate its momentum toward emergence,” said Antonio M. Perez, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “In addition, we continue our initiatives to reduce our cost structure and streamline our operating models in an effort to return the company to profitability.”

“We are reshaping Kodak. We continue to rebalance our company toward commercial, packaging and functional printing – in which we have the broadest portfolio solutions – and enterprise services. These businesses have substantial long-term growth prospects worldwide and are core to the future of Kodak. We are confident that our competitive advantages in materials science and deposition technologies, as well as our know-how in digital imaging, will enable us to capitalize on those opportunities and extend our leadership in key growth markets.”

Kodak noted that in addition to the commercial, packaging and functional printing and enterprise services businesses, it also continues to own and operate the Consumer Inkjet, Entertainment Imaging, Commercial Film and Specialty Chemicals businesses, given the company’s expertise, capabilities and strong customer relationships in these markets, as well as their combined cash-generating capability.

The Personalized Imaging business consists of Retail Systems Solutions (RSS), Paper & Output Systems (P&OS) and Event Imaging Solutions (EIS). RSS is the worldwide leader in retail print solutions with a global footprint of 105,000 KODAK Picture Kiosks; P&OS includes the broadest portfolio of traditional photographic paper and still camera film products; and EIS provides souvenir photo products at theme parks and other venues. The Document Imaging business provides a leading and comprehensive portfolio of scanners, capture software and services to enterprise customers.

“Personalized Imaging and Document Imaging are valuable businesses that enjoy leading market positions as a result of superior products and service offerings. We remain steadfast in our commitment to our customers, and we will work to ensure that they continue to receive the exceptional levels of quality and service they have come to expect from Kodak. Customers remain the top priority of all our businesses – those we intend to sell and those that will remain part of Kodak,” Perez said.

Kodak said it would move forward as quickly as possible and has targeted completing these transactions in the first half of 2013. Lazard is adviser to Kodak in the sale process.

In accordance with its prior announcement, the company is continuing discussions with parties with respect to the potential sale of its digital imaging patent portfolio. The company reiterates that it has made no decision to sell the portfolio and Kodak may, in consultation with creditors, retain the portfolio as an alternative source of recovery for creditors.

“As we move forward with the Chapter 11 process, we are focused on delivering the highest value to our creditors so that we can emerge as a sustainable, profitable company that continues to meet the needs of our customers,” Perez concluded.

Comments

It is still considered far superior in quality and detail than many consumer digital SLR cameras nowadays are capable of delivering. I still have my old Canon and Nikon FM3 film cameras to date, and find I just do not get the same quality with my digital SLR as I did when shooting film. I am really sad to see Kodak go bust they were an icon in the industry.

Hi Guys,This is my first time here on the DP forum. After having read some of the past posts concerning film vs digital I feel very compelled to speak my mind on this. Having been in the photo trade industry for nearly thirty years now and having worked in the pro photo lab and also wedding and portrait studio trade it makes me really mad to hear so called "know it all's" trashing film. I have seen both sides of this massively changing industry over the years and see the benefits and also disadvantages of both sides of the coin. Sure digital is great and has the massive benefit of instant previews and editing options which would have been more difficult with film. Having worked so many years in the printing business I have seen many so called "pro photographers" with their expensive digital SLR's with blown out highlights and overexposed shots etc. beyond any help. Film you need to understand, has a much better tolerance to under and over exposed shots by a few f-stops.

Reference Internet:Apple in regard to the iPad alone already has +/- 222.320.000 devices with lenses which are capable to produce photographs and video. Then Apple also has additional devices such as the iPod Touch, iPhones and Mac computers which have lenses and also are capable to take and process photographs and videos. Canon has sold +/- 80.000.000 lenses and Nikon +/- 65.000.000. The camera bodies to fit the lenses on is less.Then the Apple devices are also capable to connect to the Internet and in doing so offer news papers online, payment/banking via iPhone and such, iCloud computing, and perhaps even driving licenses etc. etc. Digital cameras are on the way to join the film, super 8 movies, video-recorders, fax machines, telegraph machines etc..My personal estimate!: I give them 5 years to join Kodak.

I am a middle aged pro who makes a great income off of shooting both digital and film and intend to keep it that way bud. What is sad is that unlike other crafts, passions and vocations, the bashing of film based photography has become as much a hobby or pastime for folks on here as photography it self.

There is nothing dead about a technology or method of working that continues to be well expressed in the hands of talented users, but ignorance and narrow minded thinking would surely prevent you from seeing that now wouldn't it...

Been using digital full time for nearly 20 years by the way, it is not new to me Mr. JakeB...

Well put, Dan. How arrogant of some to call others on here "old farts" (Me, I desperately HOPE to be an "old fart" someday! I want to LIVE.. and to keep witnessing and experiencing the unfolding of our seemingly-miraculous technology here!)

Not to far from Dan Nikon myself, I'm a full time photographer, who uses digital for a huge majority of my work. But I also use quite a bit of film still. Sure not like in the late 1980s and 90s when there was no other choice, when after a commercial shoot the bins were full of film packaging and polaroid bits.I still run a full professional BW darkroom in our studio with 4x5 enlargers and film dev kit, which is used on a regular basis.I love digital, just like I love film. There is no reason why we can't have both, but yet so many here have to cry, "death of film" or "digital is plastic" as if we need to have some sort of winner. Photography for some is a business, for others, an art, and for many more, a hobby, a way to record their lives, those of their young children, pets, friends and holidays. Whether they photograph that on a D4, 1Dx, a Leica, a Lomo or even a 4x5 or 8x10 (eg. SallyMann's kids), who cares? Dead technology? So many arguments.... Argue? Enjoy the photography.

From an environmental 'green' point of view we should be happy with the demise of film. Sad for Kodak for sure but it had the chance to change but unlike Fuji which faced the same issue, Kodak muffed it.

Sorry guys.......but that's the truth, they had their chance and muffed it!

I wonder about the effects that the huge amounts of digital cameras and their related accesories are having on the environment. I feel like we have simply substituted one kind (ok, a massive amount of kinds!) of poison for another. The best bet might be to take good care of our equipment, try not to overconsume (lol, that one is a toughie, I admit as a diehard gadget lover... but I do make a point to "rescue" the majority of my gear from the used market..) and perhaps to find ever-greener ways to make and use the gear we love. I do wish and sorely need to be more conscience of the repercussions my consumerism and activities have on the world around me (even merely using this computer and internet, yikes..)

@Camediadude - film photography created far more waste than digital does. Just consider all the packaging associated with a single roll of 36 exposure film. Metal film cartridge, the film emulsion itself, then a plastic canister, then a cardboard box. And for professional shooters could easily shoot 100 rolls a month. Then you have to keep in mind that back in the film days, people basically had the entire roll developed and printed (d&p), regardless of whether the images were any good or not. Then you had all those film d&p envelopes (more trash). These days, there is no developing of film (which already significantly reduces waste and byproducts), and people can select exactly which images they want to print, so printing volume is way down from what it used to be.

Also, while it may seem like people change digital cameras every year based on what you read at these equipment forums, the reality is that the general public doesn't buy new cameras anywhere nearly that often.

I have found no good assessment of all this. The manufacture and discarding of inkjet cartridges alone must entail a dramatic environmental impact. But this is one of the issues that hastened film's demise. The manufacturers didn't develop and sponsor the best possible environmental practices (Ilford did to a certain extent with film washing), provide scientific defense for hobbyists, establish recycling centers, etc.

No one defends pollution, But consider what a beauty salon and every person using home hair coloring kits puts into our waste stream!!!

Wow T3, when you put it that way ... you definitely help me to keep it all in perspective here now! I forgot/ overlooked just how much waste we really had then, you are definitely right. In some ways things are improving more than we realize, little by little. Yes, it all adds up, it all counts. We need to save and protect this Earth!

Does anyone know if their "wide angle converter lens" patent is up for sale? The reason we see teleconverters and not wideconverters is because Kodak came up with a drawing years ago and sat on the patent.

Kodak was grantd the patent in 1995. They were originally designed for APS cameras (film, not digital), and the best they came up with was 0.95× or so, due to the fact that the converter dramatically shortens the flange distance.This meant that the patent was worthless for DSLRs, but is no longer an issue with mirrorless cameras. Nobody wanted to release such a converter so far because the patent will expire this year and if they released it sooner, they would be wrapped up in legal struggles.Also, so far mirrorless cameras were a gimmick and a relatively expensive accessory was deemed as unacceptable.Expect something soon. Something like 0.7× converters for APS-c and 0.5× for µ4/3.

Miss Kodak, why do that when there is time left, a potential buyer who will actually market it better? It will take the good portion of a year for the sale to even go through. Also, there is plenty of that wonderful long scale TMY at B&H, so enjoy it for Pete's sake:

If film was so great then we'd all be shooting it today, and Kodak would be thriving. I find it ironic that the nostalgia buffs have to come onto a site named "Digital Photography Review" in order to whine about the fact that most people prefer to use digital cameras.

This makes about as much sense as going onto a sports car website and whining about "how horses were better than cars."

Neither format is better. Each has advantages and disadvantages. (In the case of film.... considerable disadvantages). I respect those who still like using the more costly and inconvenient format, but that will not change the fact that the market for film and paper has almost disappeared.

I'm sure there are still people who have a nostalgia for audio cassette tapes, and still walk around with Sony Walkman cassette tape players.

As for film photography, at least there's still Fujifilm, which I generally preferred over Kodak anyway. All these film fans should put their money where their mouth is and go buy a ton of Fuji film. No point in crying over spilled milk. Kodak is gone. Now support Fujifilm. Heck, if I still owned a film camera, I'd go buy some Fujifilm myself. Most of my color wedding photography back in the film days was done on Fuji NPS 160 and NPH 400. For landscapes it was Fuji Velvia and Provia.

I am not sure why you write this stuff. If you have a problem with people talking about film on dpreview, then simply create your own forum or ask the mods to not post such news on the home page.

And for a lot of us, it has nothing to do with nostalgia, it is simply using a different tool, oil paint instead of oil paint pro on a computer, guitar instead of guitar hero, get the picture?

The market for film is niche and that niche is alive and well....and will surely outlive your or I. Ilford is doing really well, many artists, especially talented pros using Ilford Marty. You have to get passed this bitterness Marty, I bet it is something personal for you and that is sad, but it is eating you alive sir, that much is clear.

Talented and passionate people use film Marty, some make a great living off of it too....I take it none of the above was ever you.

Hi T3, I have great news for you. Many of us pros have direct contact with hard working people at Kodak like Colleen Krenzer, Audrey Jonckheer, in fact I just talked to them over the weekend. Basically we all agree that there are potential buyers out there that would love to pull in a few million a year in profit on selling Kodak brand still film as long as it remains profitable. We also have great ideas in going forward in how to help the new owners market it. Ilford post profits every single year, they have adapted to scale....I know I would like to pull in a few million in profit even if only for 5 years off of a business if I were an investor. Other good news, Henry Prosner of B&H will tell you directly that Kodak films are in stock at B&H and sell very well.

So don't despair, Kodak film might be fine after all. There is tons of it in stock and it is fantastic stuff, trust me, really famous shooters use it like John Sexton...do you know who that is Mr. T3?

Wow, Dan Nikon, famous shooters used Kodak film!?! I had no idea! LOL.

Well, I hope Kodak does get their act together. They've done a great job so far. In the meantime, if I were to go back to film for whatever reason, I'd still go back to Fujifilm. At least they didn't run their business into the ground.

Anyways, if people accept that Kodak film is a niche business, then someone may be able to squeeze a profit out of the operation. Just don't get delusional and think that there's going to be some kind of major resurgence or something.

For the overwhelming population of the enthusiast and serious photography market that hasn't touched a roll of Kodak film in years, it really won't matter what happens to Kodak, frankly. We see gorgeous digital photos being produced every single day, in quantities that far exceed what has ever been produced in the past, and Kodak isn't even in the picture.

Hi T3, people started to accept that film was to become niche over 10 years ago, this is nothing new. And you are mistaken about something, I did not say famous shooters used it, I said they USE it. Did you ever use digital for work in the early to mid 90's T3? I sure did and boy did it suck, my D800/D4 just blow that stuff away, really fun to shoot aerials in moonlight, can't even do that with film.

But if someone said I had to choose either digital or film and not both, I would kick those computer cameras to the curb in a blink friend. People see me shooting film these days and they ask me why I do it. I simply reply, "Because I Can".

I don't really care what the enthusiast market or what the mainstream does, never did. I care about top tier, top notch, upper 1% of the pro talent pool, MOMA, Magnum, insanely good photography. So I guess the whole Flickr, dpreview gallery stuff is lost on me, I never go there, life is to short for that stuff, especially with all the garbage in it.

@Dan Nikon- good luck trying to revive Kodak. I guess the rest of us who are outside of the elitist 1%, the 99% of photographers, will just humbly have to shoot with our crummy "computer cameras" producing "garbage". LOL. Too bad no one is producing any "insanely good photography" with these "computer cameras." Too bad no "top tier, top notch" photographers are using digital.

It would be a good thing if those who are not interested in film could leave alone those who are. They use digital cameras only, they think it's much better than film, they will never use film again or they have never used film. Why do they bother themselves about film?

The reason many feel sad, I believe, is because many of us really felt that Kodak for its main history was a company that stood for quality in its products, support and, even, corporate responsibility. It provided a livlihood—and inspiration—to many families in upstate New York.

Perhaps the US government should buy their patents in order to: (1) forestall future patent lawsuits, (2) ensure that these patents are made available to everyone AND (3) license them to any company at a fair rate & use those proceeds to offset the deficit. Then these patents won't get locked away in a vault for a select few to reap the benefits of. Instead, the general public benefits. Crazy idea, huh?

How short sighted leadership that lacks vision can destroy a company. Kodak pretty much owned the imaging business. They developed much of the digital technology we use now. However they saw digital as threat to traditional market of film and so stifled their own move towards it. It wasn't expediently profitable to move towards digital. Short term they made their profits but eventually it killed them. First digital camera I owned was a Kodak 460N.

This was all about leadership, or lack of. Unfortunately past Kodak CEO's simply screwed up the company....and ripped benefit of it! Sad story, but there is nothing we can do about it...just treasure memories....

They were stuck in their own rose-colored nostalgia for film, just like some of the commenters here. If they had immediately accepted that film would become a niche product (at best), that would have allowed them to move full steam ahead with a digital strategy while still preserving their film products for the niche market. Instead they let the digital market pass them by.

What is wrong with low prices? There is no law that dictates how many bidders an auction should have, or how much money each bidder has. As long as the rules are the same for all participants it shouldn't be more illegal for a consortium to form than it should for a multinational to do so on its own.

Nothing in the digital world compares, or even comes close to the magic of those days. And I mean nothing. For those of you who have never watched a print "come up" under red light you have no idea...

There is something about film and paper. It's intangible yet it's there. They just look more real, better, or surreal if that's what you were after. I can't describe it but the artist in me knows and knows when it's missing. And, it's always missing from digital. Maybe it's the analog vs digital phenomenon; I don't know but it is real and; I miss it.

And I will miss you Kodak.

This is not the last of your problems Kodak; you are heading down a slippery slope. I doubt if you will even exists at the end of this decade.

I forgot about that one; yes very nice an incredible tonal range.Speaking of tonal ranges have you ever seen a platinum print made from a platinum plate negative?The tonal range is astounding. Platinum has a tonal range that is around 100 times greater than silver. You have to see it in person to believe it. Digital in no way shape or form can match it.Platinum photography never caught on, way too expensive and it has to be developed with mercury vapor. Talk about dangerous!There are however; a few in museums and private collections.I think the Met and Smithsonian have some. If you are there take the time to find them. If you have the eye and from the way you talk you do, you will be astounded.

You sir, are a true gentleman! =)I'm 29 years old and have been blessed with several oportunities to develop B&W film and prints at my Dad's litle modest develop room and love it.Agree with every word you write and it's true joy when mixing the chems, rolling the film, waiting for it to develop, dry it right, calculate the needed time to print it just right at that size and crop... every thing!

To not only Kodak but all the companies that are strugling with the digital era, my respect and admiration!

What exactly is a "Kodak moment" other than a marketing slogan? It's just a catchy marketing slogan. Content is what makes it a "moment" worth remembering, not Kodak. These days, special "moments" can just as easily be captured with whatever device you have with you, whether it be your iPhone or your DSLR. As the saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you. It doesn't have to be a film camera, and it doesn't have to be Kodak film. Also, there's no "shame" in capturing a moment, making it look the way you want it to look with a filter treatment, then sharing it with friends in an instant, even if they are on the other side of the world.

Kodak was known about having the simple family pictures. Even 50 years old albums its a pleasure to watch. Now look at today. You make 350 pictures of one birthday and throw it once on facebook. Yes you make a backup of it and who knows you can find/recover it back 25 years from now on an almost unreadable dvd since the online-backup service changed owners and went bankrupt.

But who is going to look through 350 pictures of a single birthday. Some people click brainless around and have so much mess that eventually they will never look back.

Which brings the question... who is still printing/selecting their fotos for family albums?

"Which brings the question... who is still printing/selecting their fotos for family albums?"

It's not the "family albums" of yesteryear that people are making. People are printing custom photo books these days, which are available through many online services and Costco. I see people printing photo books of their kids birthdays, family trips, and special events all the time! Also, the scrapbooking industry is bigger than ever. Plus, there are all kinds of prints that are much more accessible to the average consumer these days. You can go down to your local Costco or Walmart and have your photos printed onto canvas or textured papers for cheap!

The reality is that people are sharing their photos in many more ways than the old-school 4x6 print in a cheap, ugly plastic-sleaved photo album. They are putting them on their iPads, iPhones, online albums, Facebook, and so many places where so many more people can access them, download them, re-share them, and yes, print them.

Each time I hear about the demise of Kodak I think how sad it is that such a great company has so fundamentally lost its way.

No doubt all of us on this site cut our teeth on an Instamatic 126. If not then it is inconceivable that rolls of Kodak film didn't spool through our cameras from time to time.

I purchased my first digital camera in 1999. It was a Kodak DCS 210. A sub megapixel camera for £400. The batteries lasted about 30 mins and the 8MB card held about 27 photos. Even then I knew that Film was on the way out.

Canon's first consumer DSLR probably sealed the fate of film. The rest is history. I haven't shot a roll of film for eight years. Digital is more convenient, cheaper, more environmentally friendly and with the quality of the equipment all together better than film.

I wonder how many great companies will still be here in 2112? Microsoft? Apple? Marks & Spencer? Ford? BMW? Mercedes? Is it unthinkable that some of these names may no longer exist?

Far cry from the days when they used to have huge stands at the Olympics. To be honest I can't feel sorry for them; they spent the last ten years trying to make up for plunging sales by suing as many companies as possible, and it's not as if their current troubles appeared overnight. E.g. this news story from twelve years ago:http://www.dpreview.com/news/2000/09/26/kodakshares

"Shares of Eastman Kodak Co. (NYSE:EK - news) slid 25 percent Tuesday to their lowest level in more than six years after the world's largest photography company warned it will fall short of third-quarter earnings projections due to an unexpected falloff in demand for photography products."

Back then Kodak was being hammered by Fuji's film range; on the surface they seemed to be doing okay in the digital market at the time. The old news stories are fascinating to read with hindsight, seemingly endless tales of decline.

I wonder what all these patents actually are and what the tech companies (who are slowly becoming patent companies) are actually planning to do something with them. I guess its just to collect revenue mostly.

Samsung being $1billion down to Apple now might be a bit bitter about the whole thing, but at least they make dedicated cameras unlike Apple and Google. Although Google are finding there way onto camera's now.

Nothing of the sort, Friend. For starters, if Samsung does not do business in the State of California, they do not have to worry about any civil judgement against them in any of the other 49 U.S. states, let alone in any other country.

Second, the award is ridiculous, and will soon be brought down in appeals to somewhere in the $100M range. Does not mean they are going to pay it, either. This is not a government action against a company, this is strictly private beef between 2 companies. Frankly, I am not sure what Samsung was doing, not protesting enough the California venue or what.

Either way, within 5-years time Apple will be very, very sorry about a whole lot of things, I would predict.

R.I.P. Kodak. I have fond memories of fumbling and trying to load Plus X 125 onto a metal spool in total darkness in a closet-like room for my photography course in college, heheh. Countless memories that you have helped us to make will continue to live on forever, though...

There are three stories here: 1. the evolution of the corporate entity, Kodak;2. the ongoing story of why corporations can't innovate;3. what the f**k is going to happen to my beloved Portra 400 4x5 film!!!!!

So, the first two, I could care less. Better people than me will tell those stories.

If you don't care about film, feel free to skip the rest of this missive.

The last one, that's the most important thing on my mind. I love shooting 4x5, and Portra 400 has made it an even better experience. I shoot mostly handheld with a Crown Graphic, and having a fast film with a wide lattitude that can handle underexposure with ease has been a game changer.

I can only hope that someone like the Impossible Project, or, better yet, the Impossible Project, buys the film division. It has a small, but productive life ahead of it. Perfect for a small, but dedicated group.

Literally, all 'I could care less' means is that you do care, at least a little, but not necessarily very much. It is only a corruption of 'I couldn't care less', so has no meaning other than that.

I could care a lot less about Kodak, because they were such an important company, founded by a great man. I hope the brand doesn't get sold to someone who slaps it on shoddy goods, as has happened with so many other great old names. Go look at a lousy Polaroid TV for an example. Or a Westinghouse. Innovative companies reduced to brands and logos to sell terrible goods to customers who associate those names with quality.

My first digital was a Kodak DC 130 Blueberry, it matched my iMac. After 2 or 3 years its viewfinder broke. After that I rediscovered film photography but also have a number of digicams like a Leica M8 and Fuji X10. However they do not get much use. I still prefer film. But I must admit I use more Fuji film than Kodak for general use. On certain occasions however I find Portra film the best color film available, I would miss it.I'm also a big fan of instant photography. But what became of Polaroid? They came back with classic instant. Just a rebranded Fuji Instax mini 7s and rebranded Instax mini film, all made by Fuji. What about Kodak printers? Perhaps they are available in the USA but I have not seen one in my country. It is all Canon, HP and Epson.

Really sad to hear this, but I believe in the coming years people will experience digital photography overload and there will a collective nostalgia for the simplicity and experience of making film photos, which will reinvigorate Kodak.

I think people who have this "nostalgia" for shooting film probably don't remember it very well. The "simplicity" of shooting film tends to go away when you consider: changing film every 36 shots, carrying extra film if you want to shoot more than 36 shots, no ISO changing or auto ISO, no instant image review, you'll probably get sub-par film processing if you just take it to some drugstore minilab, you can't upload these photos to Facebook unless you scan them, etc, etc. Plus, as future digital cameras get wifi and apps cababilities, you'll immediately be able to make adjustments and apply effects to your photos, then upload them to a web gallery or Facebook at the push of a few buttons.

Plus, the mass market that *really* wants utmost simplicity in taking photos are already using smartphones to experience this. And "nostalgia" for the film look is being fulfilled by apps like Instagram. No need to drop off film at the photolab (and come back to pick it up).

No one is saying that people should give up on using film. It's just that I think people are a bit overly optimistic in thinking that film will make a comeback and "reinvigorate Kodak". Plus, I think people are looking back at film usage with rose-tinted glasses. But such is the nature of nostalgia. It tends to overly idealize things.

Interestingly, there also, Kodak did have an effort in making the film-digital transition. It was a quality negative scanning service called, I believe, Photo CD. Still have some kicking around. There were other ideas about converting film to digital more easily but they never panned out.

Those who have developed a B&W negative and seen it fresh out of the wash understand the passing of a huge era-from the first glass plate negatives until now.

@Gesture- negative scanning services never really panned out because people didn't see much point in shooting film, then getting a digital file back when you could just start with shooting a digital file to begin with. Kodak also had a pro scanning service called Proshots, for pros like wedding photographers. But again, pros didn't see much point in shooting film (which obviously costs money), then paying more money for a scanning service, only to get a digital file back, when they could just start with a digital file to begin with, thus cutting out the film middle man. In short, shooting film to get a digital file just didn't make much sense to a lot of people, or at the very least, wasn't very cost effective.

@T3 The problem with your argument is that you are assuming that all of us who are nostalgic about film are just amateurs out and about happily snapping away roll after roll of 35mm film and printing it out in a bathroom temporarily converted into a darkroom, which of course is something that I have done and do miss. Your point however is off the mark because most of us who have worked with film in a professional or enthusiast capacity would never use 35mm if given the option over medium or large formats. Our "nostalgia" stems from the fact that we lost a lot of the benefits associated with film photography that are now lost or restricted with digital. You seem to forget that the film aspect was only half of the equation, the other half being the print, especially from large format. Most people today will never bother making a print more than 8 1/2 x 11 in. For me the nostalgia for film was the fact that I could make a 16x20 print from an 8x10 negative and have it look amazing.

"More and more people on the street walking with film cameras, today. Most of my friends switched to film."

Unfortunately, you and your friends are in the extreme minority, and are certainly not enough to turn the declining tide of film use. I certainly don't see "more and more people on the street walking with film cameras, today." Everyone's either got a digital camera or are using their phones to take photos! And who has the time to scan film? Wow, what a pain in the butt film scanning is! LOL. It's a slow, tedious process yielding massive file sizes that don't really look any better than many of today's digital cameras. And high ISO film is still weak compared to what today's best digital cameras can produce.

T3, I shot "Photo-Moto" of a 130 mile stage of a bike race this year that went over three burly mountain passes. Each time we went over one, I was amazed at how many Mamiya's 6, Leicas, Xpans and other film cameras I saw. Mostly by pros with credential bibs. I had a F100 loaded with Tri-X as a third body, got great stuff. There are a noticeable amount of amateurs and pros who are adding film back into the mix because it is fun and it is not digital. I have personally invested tens of thousands in the past few years in black and white film, paper and chemistry because I am getting good money for hand made prints. As for scanning, it is no harder to scan one image of nicely exposed film than it is to deal with a badly placed piece of dust on 300+ D800 raw files. I prefer the former. Film is now a great niche and we all get to benefit from that. You either want to use it or you don't, your choice. But you have to give respect to those of us who use film or both, it's about talent, period.

Dan, you're delusional if you don't think dust doesn't effect film scanning too! And as for a "badly placed piece of dust on 300+ RAW files", unless every one of those 300 files is a keeper, it's really not an issue. Besides, I don't remember the last time sensor dust was an issue on any of my shoots, especially with today's sensor cleaning systems, and it's even less of an issue if you're not shooting at f/16 because it's mainly at these smaller apertures that sensor dust becomes apparent.

At any rate, any uptake in film apparently isn't enough to offset its overall decline in recent years. Most workaday photogs just don't have time for film. In a nutshell, it's impractical. I shoot 2000+ images on any given wedding, and I can have all my selects chosen by the next day. Most other working photogs need their selects chosen that same day, if not the same hour!

How many Reuters or SI photogs shot film at the London Olympics? Most likely none. It's just impractical.

You are talking mainstream T3, weddings, stuff like that. I don't shoot that. When time is the factor, I shoot digital. But if it is not, I can make the choice and that is all I am onto here, we still have a choice and for those of us who are in good paying niches like I am or are like Superka, we make our choices and are happy with them. Choice is good, don't you think?

Sure, I think choice is good. I just think people need to be realistic when making claims that "more and more people on the street walking with film cameras, today" or that dust is a big issue with a DSLR but not so much on film scanning! I think people should definitely have the choice to shoot film, but be realistic that it's as much of a niche as ever, and it has a lot of hurdles and disadvantages associated with it, which is why it has fallen out of favor so drastically like many superceded technologies end up doing. After all, you don't see many cars with audio cassette tapes or home theatres with VHS VCRs in use any more.

It would not surprise me that not only will photography using film be a niche but photography using conventional digital cameras and the brand names associated with these cameras also. Apple products, for one, which have the capability to do photography, video, the storage, processing, displaying etc. will replace much of the conventional digital cameras.

Most of the components used in Apple devices are licensed and made by manufacturers other than Appple, especially storage, processing and video capture. In Kodak's defense, their products and patents were typically all developed in house and didn't require manufacturing in China to gain market share.

Apple's assorted porta-gadgets are, for the most part, cheaply made in the People's Republic of China. For the technology, they usually lift that from others -- then go through the California civil court system to seek compensation on top of that.

In Asia, they must have like what, 10x the technological brain power than what we have got left with here in North America, except for the war machine industry. Sad, more than anything else, really.

Mr. Perez's plan to get out of the consumer film and camera business and focus on Kodak's huge commercial customer base is the plan that should have been in play ten years ago. Now it's just a bandaid being applied as a cure to a company on life support in an intensive care unit, and will probably be too little, too late. The vultures are circling. R.I.P. Kodak.

I think the only path to survival was to evolve fully into a technology company, doing research and development, advancing core areas like chemistry, medical and imaging. How can one succeed competing with Lexmark for consumer printers? And just what are enterprise services? An icon, credible, responsible and responsive in its day.

After a long of list of mistakes Kodak selected a CEO who came from the printing business. He did what he knew, not what was necessary. He did not foresee that today most people share over screen and not prints. They believed that the future is to not go to the photo lab any more to get your 4x6 prints but to do this at home. It never took off. Wrong person, wrong vision, wrong path. There is no room left for Kodak unless they pull out a new, totally different vision that is not driven by risk mitigation.

And in your opinion, "what was necessary?" Film was losing Kodak money and clearly would lose more money in the future, Digital was losing Kodak money and every indication was that it'd lose more money in the future. Photographic equipment, supplies, and services wasn't a moneymaker any more and never would be again.

They knew they needed to get out of photography, and they placed their bets on printing. Kodak's pigment ink is arguably the best in the world in just about every aspect, and at a price well below the competition's. Kodak's print heads also are class leaders. Kodak photo printers produce outstanding prints... when they can get the danged paper to feed. Maybe if Kodak had gotten a mechanical engineer who could make their printers reliable, they'd have succeeded. But I suspect that the home printing market isn't big enough, either, for the reasons you've already mentioned.

Kodak is ditching their consumer divisions, and anybody that has worked inside the Kodak distortion field in the past like I have know they've been trying to do this for years. The process started in the 90's. As far as I know Kodak is keeping their professional divisions, although E-6 is dying fast. RA-4 is still lucritive on the lab end, and C-41 and RA-4 papers share a lot of the same tech. Expect those materials to hang around for quite awhile.

well, nothing lost here: I always hated film, thought it was a complex mess. Especially color: Who had the time, the money, the whatever to process color at home? Once I had a Kodak camera as a kid, Instamatic something or other, what a POS: I really got a conviction then that American enterprises cater to the lowest common denominator, unlike the Japanese who made great stuff like Nikon. There are of course others, like Apple or the various gun manufacturers, that make quality products and frequently get maligned by the public whiners.

What's lost is the company that basically invented digital photography. They brought out the first digital SLRs, and made tons of imaging sensors. If they put more attention into high end digital cameras instead of trying to continue their film and printing business, they might still be fine today.

@Francis Carver, you're a crazy hypocrite. On the one hand you call this guy an "all-out America hater" but on the other hand you yourself are a vocal Apple-hater...Apple is an American company and is one of the greatest American-company success stories of our generation, started by two resourceful Americans in an American garage in Los Altos, CA, and today employs thousands of Americans in their HQ in Cupertino, in their stores, and in their data centers across the US. It's amazing how many America-loving Americans are so happy to hate American-based Apple, Inc. and wish for its demise, while rooting on companies like Samsung, which is a Korean company!

A T3: Apple. Oh, yeah. An "American" company -- except they don't really like to pay federal corporate income taxes to Uncle Sam. do they? Or personal income taxes and estate taxes for that matter -- just ask. Mr. S. Jobs' heirs.

Lot's of brain at Apple -- except it is usu8ally someone else's.

Making lots of American products -- as long as they are made in the People's Republic of China or some other place in Asia.

We are talking about the same company, aren't we?

BTW, I just "loved" reading your diatribe above about how badly film is dead. I guess if Apple was making film cameras -- you would say that film was definitely NOT dead, correct?

@Francis Carver - no, that's just more Americans hating Americans. But you'd probably feel right at home there.

Listen, if you want to root for the downfall a successful American company like Apple that makes great products, has great service, and has put a lot of people to work, go ahead. But keep in mind that there are plenty of foreign companies filled with foreign execs and foreign workers throughout their entire ranks from top to bottom that are more than happy to usurp Apple's position. But your attitude regarding Apple is simply a form of self-destructive McCarthyism where Americans persecute other Americans for not being "American enough".

For starters, Apple is legally HQ'd in California, correct? Lately, that states does not even seem to be a part of America, Friend. Also, Apple is using slave labor on the cheap in Asia to sell overpriced gizmos at 300% profit margins for techno-snobs, so go right ahead, stack up on your iPhone 4s before you place your huge order for them iPhone 6s. The poverty-stricken relations of Mr. S. Jobs will thank you kindly, I'm sure.

@Francis Carver- Wow, you're taking your McCarthyism to extremes, Francis. California is now longer part of America, huh? In other words, any part of America that you don't like is not part of America to you! WOW! I bet you would just love to be the head of a modern-day "Un-American Activities Committee" witch hunt organization to decide which Americans deserve to be Americans, which Americans aren't American enough for you, and which Americans should be expelled from America! WOW, Francis! Do you even realize how scary and disgusting that is? Probably not, because you're such a jingoistic hate-monger. Enjoy your life, but take your hate elsewhere, far away from these forums, please.

So being HQ'd in CA isn't good enough for you because CA isn't American enough for you, but you just love Samsung because they're HQ'd in Korea! LOL. Hypocrite.

You clearly have some anger issues that go beyond the scope of this forum, Francis. Get some help before you do something terrible.

I did know a Fujifilm engineer in Japan, and listening to what he said me 10 years ago at Fuji too people didn't realize the digital wave was about to break out, and completely change the landscape of photography. I don't blame 100% Kodak for its blindness, they were not alone to be so, and it's always easy to tell "I would have done that" afterward.

I stopped shooting 35mm well before I went dSLR because 35mm was an amatuer format with terrible tonality and flexibility compared to MF and LF. So, the contrived nostalgia about small format film is as bogus now as it was then. Also, lab gear and control tools to process C-41 and E-6 to consistent standards costs far more than a top end FF dSLR.

I have been shooting mostly film on past 1.5 years and I must say moving back from digital has been so very satisfying. It's actually the hassles you need to take into account when shooting film that make it so satisfying. If you put more effort and dedication into something you get a bigger emotional gratification in return. And the limited technical freedom keeps your creativity flowing and makes you improve on your technique. Also, film has still an organic quality that is special and that most people prefer over digital. So there are plenty of reasons for shooting film, but unfortunately in a society where where dedication and attention is in sharp decline, it's obviously harder and harder to understand.

Kodak was a film company (and really to a large extent a chemical company). They actually invented digital photography (that Bayer sensor was invented by a Kodak engineer named "Bayer"), then failed to develop and market it properly. They were too concerned about protecting their film and chemical business, and as a result saw an 84% market share dwindle to 0%.

Apple is just the opposite. No matter what you think about them you have to agree they keep reinventing themselves. This was a computer company that became a mp3 player company that is now a cell phone company. You get the sense that Apple might be around forever if they keep changing and adapting their mission.

Personally, I'm amazed that Kodak lasted this long. They made so many mistakes that surviving for 121 years is pretty impressive.

As far as film, paper and chemicals go... if someone is willing to buy them, then someone will be willing to make them.

Don't give too much credit to Apple as a company. They almost folded before they brought back Jobs. Apple was Jobs and Jobs was Apple. Let's hope the company learned something and don't repeat their past mistakes without Jobs there to hold their hands.

Yes, Microsoft had to help keep them afloat... there are those of us old enough to remember when Office would not run on the Mac platform and the Microsoft vise was crushing them due to the proliferation of the PC and Apple's excessively-expensive hardware.

I'm going through a new laptop every 4 years (yes, I'm careful). Now I went through an upgrade to Win 7, with many problems w/ old programs (even had to abandon one).

Cannot wait for cloud computing. Just got the Chromebox and a 24" IPS terminal is next (sub $200)

Oh, the Kodak thing. Never understood why they installed (and kept revising) all the custom terminals at photo shops. Should have gone with Internet downloads and hope that Internet was going to be, well, popular.

First of all, Jobs and Wozniak did not start Apple Computer, Mike Markkula did. And the funding came from VenRock (Venture Rockefeller). So, lets get the history straight. They walked into Mike's office with an apple I in their hands. He did ALL of the leg work to get the money, set it up, hire the right people, etc.Secondly, the only reason that apple rose was because of a couple of guys name Brinkston and Frankston; they invented VisiCalc. Since VisiCalc was the first spreadsheet and it only ran on the Apple II for almost 2 years that's the time when apple went from a no revenues to a 250 million dollar company. Visicalc drove apple's sales suprisingly; in the corporate world. This gained them acceptance and accounted for at least half of their revenues during the critical first 2 years.Without them, apple would have probably went the way so many of the other 'hobbiest' computer companies of that day went, into oblivion.

Thank goodness for Apple, otherwise we'd still all be stuck with Windows cr@pware. Apple really raised the bar on computer hardware design, phone design, and tablet design. Does anymore remember what smartphones were like before the iPhone? I do! I hated my Windows Mobile phone with a passion. Does anymore remember what tablets were like before the iPad? Total bloated cr@p that relied on a stylus to operate.

I was probably dealing with my Windows Mobile phone breakdown. Or was it my Windows Vista "blue screen of death" breakdown? Or was it the breakdown I was having dealing with my Microsoft Zune's lack of single-song repeat. What mp3 player doesn't have single-song repeat? Oh yeah, the Zune! Believe me, I have many years of my life to Microsoft and Windows. I did my time. I've earned my freedom from them! LOL! Thank goodness I won't have to be dealing with Windows 8.

I don't understand, if they are going to continue making 35mm motion picture film, why they can't sell the exact same film stocks packaged for 35mm SLR cameras. If demand is too low to support a national distribution network, sell it directly to photographers over the internet.

35mm motion picture film is a tiny market and shrinking. It's also a different chemical process to develop it. Selling directly to end users is every company's nightmare. Nothing worse than dealing with needy end users who think the $25 product they just bought entitles them to free phone support and lifetime warranty. Film is a small market that's declining. Companies are interested in things that promise growth.

Motion picture film was cut and sold in standard 35mm cannisters in the middle and late 80's. The problem is that the material is made for optimum transfer to a interpositive and not optimum print making. MP film today is a decreasing commodity and never did yield optimum results as good as premium print films.

Looks like big corporations won at last; film is dead. Now we have no choice but to use digital 100% of the time. I'm sure the higher ups at Kodak knew this way in advance and more than likely had some back door deals with other investors. Thanks a lot Kodak.

It reminds me how quartz watches were supposed to have the analogic ones overkilled. Yet, have a look to the watch market, and tell me which one, the quartz one or the analogic one, sells at a higher price ? Technology is sometimes like a typhoon, it comes from nowhere, breaks everything, seems to go out and suddenly comes back for another dance.

Francis, you are probably not old enough to remember what using film was like, so I wouldn't be too quick to make all-encompassing generalizations if I were you. If film is not dead,then where are all the film labs? How many new film cameras are available today? When was the last time a camera manufacturing company came out with a new film camera? Please do at least little bit of research before you post immature comments.

Nah, Ilford is fine Snegron, many of us pros who use both are fine. I am sure that annoys the daylights out of you but that is the way it is and will be for a long time, talented shooters who want a choice making that choice. If I were a guitarist, I would want to know I could get strings for my Martin acoustic instead of needing to play "Garage Band" software on my computer....the computer dude, it's that thing that everybody uses for everything that is not anything else but a computer. I have been shooting digital for nearly 20 years as a pro and I have never seen a craft, vocation or art form take the beating that film photography has, by a bunch of talentless technology loving hacks no less. Check back in 10 years, people are going to blow your mind in what they are doing on film, that is a FACT bud!

No, you're not forced to use digital 100% of the time. Fuji still makes film. Ilford still makes film. Efke still makes film. Foma still makes film. If you want to shoot film, you can still do it. So why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go shoot some film!

@snegronThere are perhaps 15-20 retail stores in greater Sydney that develop c41. Maybe more. About 4-5 that can process E6 and Black & White.Working in a small retail one myself (we only do C41) I'd say we push through at least 50 rolls a week.There is a small resurgence in film users at the moment, and it will continue to grow as people realise what digital takes away from the image making and viewing process.I will also point out that processing my own Black & White is an extremely satisfying feeling. It has a visible heart and soul that digital strips it's images of.Kodak may be in it's final throes, but film is certainly not dead.

Film is certainly not dead. Who could have thought that after 110 film was gone in 2009 it is back in 2012 in B&W and color at the Lomography company. I wonder who is making the new 110 film. A fact is that prices of used Pentax 110 SLR's are reaching an incredible height on auction sites. I still have my complete set. The only question is who can develop these 110 films...

The sad part of digital is all the family images lost forever when computers fail or people do stupid things like reformat their external hard drive when they believed they were reformatting a memory card and lost 10 thousands pic's (post on DPR). For the few that backup family pic's, they buy the cheapest C/D's and DVD's that only last 10 to 20 years. 50 years from now people won't even know what a DVD is, or be able to get prints from it, remember floppies, the computer companies don't care what they made yesterday. Last week my mother showed me a picture of her grandmother made in the late 1890's and asked if I could copy it, I scanned it and made a few prints, easy. 50 or 75 years from now my kids/grand kids will still be able to scan film to view or maybe even make prints! My parents shot 35mm slide film for all vacations and special events, I copied the slides to DVD's. It's sad that in just 2 or 3 decades from now, most will not have any family pic's to view.

Well you've never experienced a house fire, flood, tornado, or Uncle Louie's crazy filing system that prevents anyone from finding negatives? Fact is prints will last just as easily, if not more so, in the digital age. If the PC crashes, that is the same as mom and dad not filing their negatives properly or even tossing them. Long live digital!

Quite the opposite. It's so simple to keep digital files save in various locations and in online storage which is virtually free these days. A physical negative exists in only one place and any damage is 100% destructive. Digital images can be copied in a matter of minutes thus creating redundant versions. It's so much simpler to be on the safe side with digital photos. The amount of data that a computer was able to hold 20 years ago can today be copied in 3 ms and takes on an insignificant amount of available storage space. Just think 20 years ahead. All the photos that I have today will fit easily on whatever digital storage we will have then. No fading like film, no danger of getting lost. I have about 2000 slides and negatives. Nothing can be found or searched and scanning it takes ages. Today I import my digital photos on my PC, they get keyworded and organized in no time.Within hours the backup to my offside location is done.

Mandm must still be using his 486sx, 9600baud modem along with an optical jukebox and PCX formatted files. Today, issues with digital storage and transfer have been eliminated and we have more concerns with every high rez file loaded on the internet existing forevever via endless virtualization and back-up. It's a luddite arguement at best.

You're talking non-sense. First of all, it's not difficult to recover data from formatted drives. Secondly, countless millions of photos exist on the web. Third, photo files are redistributed to multiple locations now more than ever. Fourth, any of today's prints will easily last as long or longer than prints from the past. Fifth, paid-for photography, like the photo of your great grandmother taken in the 1890's, is typically printed and properly archived which means it stands just as good a chance of being viewed decades from now as your great grandmother's photo.

You still have to have electricity. You cannot view a digital image without it. Period. Oh, you can print it out but considering the high acid content of modern papers, they probably won't last 100 years.

Heaven forbid that someday our civilization destroys itself but; at least the aliens might find some silver based images of what we once were...

Latest in-depth reviews

The Nikon Z6 may not offer the incredible resolution of its sibling, the Z7, but its 24MP resolution is more than enough for most people, and the money saved can buy a lot of glass. Find out what's new and notable about the Z6 in our First Impressions Review.

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

The SiOnyx Aurora is a compact camera designed to shoot stills and video in color under low light conditions, so we put it to the test under the northern lights and against a Nikon D5. It may not be a replacement for a DSLR, but it can complement one well for some uses.

At its core, the Scanza is an easy-to-use multi-format film scanner. It offers a quick and easy way to scan your film negatives and slides into JPEGs, but costs a lot more than similar products without a Kodak label.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

Sony had the full-frame mirrorless market to itself for nearly five years, but it's no longer alone – the Nikon Z6 and Canon EOS R have both arrived priced to compete with the a7 III. We take a head to head to head look at these three cameras.

As if it needed one, the triple-camera smartphone might really be the final nail in the compact camera's coffin. DPR contributor Lars Rehm brought the LG V40 on a hiking trip recently and found it to be a huge leap forward in terms of creative freedom.

Renowned UK-based landscape photographer Nigel Danson has been using DSLRs for years. In this video, created exclusively for DPReview, Nigel discusses his experience using the Nikon Z7 and why he's excited about mirrorless cameras. (Spoiler... beautiful scenery ahead.)

Chinese optical manufacturer Kipon has added the Nikon Z and Canon R mounts to its range of adapters made to attach medium format lenses from Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax and others to full frame cameras.